Troubled Barnfield College has been described by Ofsted as having “no key strengths” — prompting question marks over whether former principal Sir Peter Birkett deserved his 2012 knighthood for services to FE and the academy movement.

Luton South MP Gavin Shuker blamed the college’s problems — the most recent of which was a damning inadequate grading — on the federation of academies which Sir Peter set up from 2007.

“Sir Peter Birkett took an outstanding college, starved it of resources and focussed on building a network of schools that sadly has ended up with an inadequate college and that’s a tragedy,” said Mr Shuker.

He added that the honours system “recognises achievements — but these achievements have been shown to be nowhere near as effective as we originally thought.”

Indeed, Ofsted’s report told how “success rate data are now more reliable than at any time during the past year, following a period in which a number of factors contributed to an over-inflation of the performance of the college.”

[socialpoll id=”2245240″]

Sir Peter’s knighthood had already proved contentious, with an online petition in April calling for him to rescind the honour winning the support of 183 people.

Although he left the college in July 2013, audits later uncovered a £1m funding overstatement, leading to claims of ghost learners, investigations by the Skills Funding Agency and Education Funding Agency and an FE Commissioner visit.

Sir Peter declined to comment on his knighthood.

Barnfield’s commissioner first after Ofsted blow

Barnfield College is set to become the first college to receive two full visits from FE Commissioner Dr David Collins, following an inadequate Ofsted inspection result.

The Luton-based college went from a grade three to four rating, with inspectors finding the college had “no key strengths” while viewing success rates, teaching and learning as inadequate.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) said the result would trigger a visit from Dr Collins, whose visit in January last year followed a Skills Funding Agency (SFA) assessment of inadequate for financial control at the college.

A BIS spokesperson told FE Week: “The FE Commissioner’s assessment of Barnfield College in January 2014 recommended new financial regulations and controls be put in place urgently and changes were made to the governance and leadership.

“The commissioner has found progress in addressing financial concerns. He is now due to re-assess the college, focusing his attention on quality of provision and the actions put in place to address the issues identified by Ofsted.”

Robin Somerville, chair of Barnfield College, which is due to submit plans to BIS to split from the federation of academies built up under former leader Sir Peter Birkett from 2007, said governors “fully accepted” Ofsted’s findings.

“This is an unacceptable failure by a significant majority of the previous management, governors and teaching staff,” he said. “On behalf of the college, I have apologised to students for that failure.”

It is the latest in a series of blows for the college following government probes with auditor KPMG finding it had overclaimed more than £1m for provision that had never happened, leading to allegations of ghost learners.

Meanwhile, Dr Collins later identified a “general feeling among all levels of the organisation that the college has been relatively neglected in the previous director general/CEO’s [Sir Peter’s] pursuit of attempting to grow the overall federation into a national business”.

And Luton South MP Gavin Shukler said the Ofsted rating could be blamed on Sir Peter’s focus on creating the Barnfield Federation academy chain.

“The criticisms in the report reflect how poor management decisions have affected teaching and staff,” he said.

“We’ve still got brilliant staff there but they need additional resources and they need steady management which we’ve not had in recent years.”

Sir Peter, who left Barnfield in July 2013, said: “It saddens me to read the Ofsted report.”

He added: “I am not sure how this has been allowed to happen and hope senior management have now put strategies in place to rectify the points raised in the report and I wish them well for the future.”

Lydia Richards, University and College Union regional official for Eastern and Home Counties, said: “The poor leadership and financial mismanagement identified last year at Barnfield College has evidently had a negative effect on overall performance, despite continued hard work and commitment from staff.”

Interim principal Monica Box is due to step down in March for Tim Eyton-Jones, currently principal of John Ruskin College, to take over.

Mr Somerville said Ms Box had “already started the urgent and robust work to correct the failings identified by Ofsted.”

And Mr Eyton-Jones said: “We will be implementing a range of robust and established quality improvement models as well as some innovative initiatives to support the turnaround.”

Please note that an earlier version of this poll was reset due to people being allowed to vote more than once. This issue has now been fixed and the poll reset to zero as of 1.30pm on Saturday, January 10.

The entries are in, the shortlist is finalised and it’s time for the winner of the FE Week and Me photography competition to be chosen. A judging panel made up of representatives from FE Week and NCFE took on the difficult task of selecting 15 finalists from more than 982 entries this year.

 FE Week and Me, a competition organised by FE Week in partnership with NCFE, challenged learners in FE and skills to submit a pictures that depicted student life in the, through the eyes of students.

 The winner from the photography student category will be chosen by public vote and will receive a Nikon D5100 Camera Kit and a work shadowing placement with a professional photographer. All that remains for you to do is check out the stunning images below and choose your favourite, then cast your vote in the FE Week and Me photography competition 2014. The voting box can be found at the end of this article.

To download: The Finalists FE Week and Me Photography Supplement click here

[socialpoll id=”2248405″]

The future of apprenticeship funding remains unclear despite the government this morning responding to the results of a three-month technical consultation last year.

The government has pledged further “collaborative” consultation after neither of the proposed mechanisms to fund apprenticeships emerged as a clear favourite.

Funding for apprenticeships is currently routed through providers, but in future funding is expected to be routed through employers — either, the consultation proposed, through the PAYE system or an apprenticeship credit account.

Skills Minister Nick Boles, writing in the response document, said: “Based on the feedback to the consultation, we have concluded that further detailed design work is needed before we can reach a final decision on which funding mechanism will be taken forward to meet our shared aim of more high quality apprenticeships, where employers hold the purchasing power. We will continue to undertake this further work with you, in an open and collaborative way.”

The technical consultation, which ran from March 6 and attracted 1,459 responses, followed a 2013 consultation that uncovered wide-spread opposition to employer-routed funding.

Mr Boles added that the decision to give employers direct control of apprenticeship funding was “non-negotiable” — but there was no restatement of the government’s commitment last year that the new funding mechanism would be put in place in 2016.

“If we are going improve and expand our apprenticeship programme further we must put employers in the driving seat — and give them control of both the design and funding of apprenticeships,” he said.

“I look forward to working with employer organisations and others to develop a funding model that is simple, transparent and easy for employers to use.”

However, the government’s pledge to commit £2 for every £1 of employer investment looks less certain with the consultation response revealing it would only be implemented from September on a “trial” basis, continuing the trials already underway.

A Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) spokesperson declined to comment on the ratio, but said: “We have not yet reached a decision on what the mechanism for routing funding to employers should be.

“As a result of the responses to the consultation we are keeping an open mind and considering all the options including what lessons we can learn from the funding model we are trialling with the trailblazers.”

Nevertheless, news that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) would be consulting further on the reform plans, which follows an apparent thawing on the idea from Mr Boles, were welcomed by the Association for Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) and Association of Colleges (AoC).

Employers made up 995 of the respondents, and AELP chief executive Stewart Segal said the decision to consult further showed “the government has heard the voice of employers”.

“We have been saying for some time that employers want to have the purchasing power in the programme and in fact they already do have that power,” he said.

“Most of the employers our members work with do not want to take on the administration and management of the government contributions and they will want to continue to work with the providers of their choice.”

Mr Segal added AELP was working with BIS and the funding agencies to develop its own, simpler model that would “encourage more employers to become engaged”.

Teresa Frith, AoC senior skills policy manager, said: “We are pleased to see the government standing by its commitment to create a world-class apprenticeship programme and pledging to take its time to get the reforms right.

“It has taken on feedback from the consultation which raised concerns about the practicalities of fulfilling the principle of employer-routed public funding. More work needs to be done before this goes ahead.”

No one from BIS was available to comment on when further consultation would be taking place or how it would be carried out.

 

A general FE college has stepped in after a major private provider pulled out early from London’s £17m prison education contract, FE Week can reveal.

Welfare-to-work provider A4e gave three months’ notice to the SFA in August that it was terminating its Offender Learning and Skills Service (Olass) contract for the Capital’s 13 prisons.

It agreed to carry on running the service for another two months after the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) failed to sign up a replacement provider to take on the contract by its original December deadline.

But the SFA has now confirmed that The Manchester College, which already holds the North East, North West, Kent and Sussex, and Yorkshire and Humberside Olass4 contracts, will take over for London prisons from next month.

An SFA spokesperson told FE Week: “Following the recent procurement exercise, we are pleased to confirm that The Manchester College has been successful and will be delivering the Olass contract in London with effect from February 1.

“The Manchester College will continue to work closely with the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), the SFA and the current London Olass provider to ensure a smooth transition for learners and staff.”

Peter Cox (pictured), director of commercial development at The Manchester College, said: “We are excited about the opportunity to expand our services into these additional establishments to raise the aspirations and skills of learners in custody, to help increase employability and reduce reoffending.”

A college spokesperson said it would take on all 600 staff currently employed by A4E on the London contract, through the transfer of undertakings protection of employment (TUPE) process.

Rod Clark, chief executive of the Prisoners Education Trust, said: “We’re delighted the uncertainty surrounding the future of the contract has come to an end for the sake of staff and learners.”

The SFA told FE Week in August that the three providers, other than A4e, to have won Olass4 contracts — the Manchester College, Milton Keynes College and Weston College — had been invited to apply to take over for London.

A4e won London’s Olass4 contract in August 2012 and had been expected to deliver the training until July 2016.

It had won the work with Kensington and Chelsea College having delivered all three of London’s previous prison education contracts since the Olass system was first rolled out across the country in 2006.

An A4E spokesperson said the company would continue to run its Olass4 contract for 14 prisons in the East of England.

The new year got off to a flying start for FE and skills with more than 30 sector figures named in the 2015 Honours list.

And it wasn’t just the well-known names and faces who were honoured — the contribution all staff make to learners was recognised, not least with Christopher Willder, groundsperson at Brooksby Melton College, and James Jackson, caretaker at Woodhouse College, in line for British Empire Medals (BEMs).

The sector also gained a new Dame in Nestle UK boss Fiona Kendrick following her contribution to skills development, four CBEs, 11 OBEs, a dozen MBEs and a total of seven BEMs.

Click here to view the Honours article (pictured above) from edition 123 of FE Week

Association of Colleges chief executive Martin Doel congratulated those who were honoured, paying particular attention to the six principals listed.

He said: “Principals work tirelessly for their college, students and local community and receiving such a high honour is a sign of how important their work is considered to be.

“I offer my congratulations to everyone who received an award — it is very well deserved.”

An Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) spokesperson said it was “really encouraged” to see the efforts of so many from the FE sector recognised.

“AELP extends its warmest congratulations to its members who have received awards and to others in the FE and skills sector,” he said.

National Institute of Adult Continuing Education chief executive David Hughes said the honours helped “highlight the many personal, social and economic benefits FE and skills brings”.

Click here for further FE Week honours coverage, including quotes from those not featured in edition 123, such as apprenticeship ambassador and CBE recipient Jason Holt.

Labour’s apprenticeship proposals could cost taxpayers as much as £11.7bn over the course of the next parliament, according to Treasury research.

Costings of 28 Labour policies were published on Monday (January 5), including three on apprenticeships and a further four affecting the wider FE and skills sector (see below). They suggested Labour’s spending plans would include £1.5bn on apprenticeships in the first year alone.

Chancellor George Osborne (pictured right) said: “This is an objective, thorough, and detailed cost analysis of Labour’s policy agenda.”

But in Labour’s rebuttal, published the following day, Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls (main pic, above), described the costings as “riddled with untruths and errors” and “a political smear based on false assumptions”.

Dr Lynne Sedgemore, 157 Group executive director, said exchanging “hypothetical figures” was “unhelpful” especially when both main parties support broadly similar policy themes in regard to skills — an increase in apprenticeships, more training for those out of work and the establishment of new types of institution.

“If the cost of policies is to be a focus for the election campaign, we hope that the clear return on investment — both economic and social — delivered by a thriving, high quality skills system will also be factored fairly into the debate,” she said.

Association of Employment and Learning Providers chief executive Stewart Segal said: “None of these Labour policy options have been set out in any detail. The costings of these policy options are also fairly speculative and much will depend on the detail of the proposals.”

He added: “The positive return on investment of these programmes to the UK economy has been proven time and again so it not just a question of cost.”

A spokesperson for the Association of Colleges said: “It is important that whoever forms the next Government is mindful of what colleges need.”

Labour’s apprenticeship policies costed by the Treasury were, firstly, plans to make all apprenticeships level three and above and to increase the minimum duration from one to two years for non-technical apprenticeships and three years for technical ones.

The Treasury’s costings for 19+ apprenticeships, based on the current apprenticeship funding system, put the price tag at £3.8bn in the next parliament, and £680m in the next year.

However, the Labour rebuttal document said their policy was about quality in apprenticeships, not quantity.

“In reality it would not cost any additional money… because it makes no commitment on the total number of apprentices,” the document said.

“Our policy is about requiring that short courses that do not meet a minimum standard are not misleadingly branded as apprenticeships.”

Labour has, however, said it would like the number of school leavers applying for apprenticeships increase to match the number starting university by 2025.

And on this, the second costing assumes 185,000 18-year-olds start university in 2025 (based on projections from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills), and apprenticeship costs remain the same as 2013/14. The Treasury costing therefore estimates the total cost over the next parliament, will be £5.5bn and £710m in 2015-16.

Labour rejected this, saying: “Ed Miliband made clear in his speech to Labour Party Conference September 2014 that this is a national goal for 2025, not a policy for immediate implementation.”

Labour has also said it would ensure that all public procurement contracts would include a requirement to hire one apprentice for each £1m awarded in the contract. The third Treasury costing puts forward three financial outcomes for this.

The first assumes that any costs to the employer, such as salary, supervision, recruitment and administration are passed on to government by raising the contract price — resulting in a bill of £1.1bn to £2.4bn over the next parliament and up to £234m in the first year.

The second assumes only the apprentice’s salary is reclaimed, costing up to £1.1bn over the next parliament and £67m to £107m in the next year.

The third assumes the employer “nets off” the productive contribution the apprentice makes to the business and the savings on fully trained workers’ salaries, from the apprentice’s salary, but still passes other costs on to Government, costing up to £1.4bn over the next parliament and up to £144m in the next year.

However, Labour said: “This policy would not lead to any additional spending on procurement over existing procurement budgets. Instead, this policy is about changing the requirements on the companies ahead of bidding for contracts and changing the way companies recruit rather than increasing costs.”

£1.4bn to build100 new UTCs

One of the policies costed by the Treasury is a suggestion made by Lord Adonis in his review, Mending the Fractured Economy: Starter State, Better Jobs, published in July, that 100 new University Technical Colleges (UTCs) should be opened by 2020.

The Treasury costing estimates a total of at least £1.419bn by 2025, assuming all new UTCs are up and running by 2020.

By far the biggest cost laid out in the document would be the capital cost to construct buildings, which the costings calculate at £1,315m up until 2022-23.

The total cost in the next Parliament (2015 until 2020) would be £1,112.18m.

However, Labour denied the idea of opening 100 new UTCs was even official Labour policy.

“What the government has costed is an idea proposed in the Adonis Review, which does not constitute Labour Party policy,” Labour’s rebuttal document said.

It also dismissed the costing figures as “wrong,” adding: “The Government has said itself that it would open more UTCs and we support this policy since it will take place within existing capital budgets.”

Detailed breakdown of the Treasury’s controversial financial estimates

All FE teachers must be qualified or working towards it

Treasury costing says:

• If costs include training new teachers and existing ones without qualifications (who should have completed by 2017/18) total cost over four years would be £433m for the FE sector
• Including school teachers, the total cost of ensuring all teachers were qualified in 2015/16 would be £177m (£122m for FE, £55m for schools)

Labour says:

“This costing is wrong.

“We would manage this within existing budgets, just as the last Labour government did.

“Our policy would ensure that over time FE lecturers would train in greater numbers, it is wrong to assume that it would be any specific number in 2015-16.”

All Jobseekers to be assessed for maths and English and IT and required to take up training if they fall below a certain standard

Treasury costing says:

• If jobseekers need level one English and entry level three maths, each qualification costs £714 and around 1,062,000 claimants needed screening, it would cost £513m in the first year
• This figure includes the cost of screening claimants and providing training for those who need it

Labour says:

“Funding is already provided to train adults who lack basic skills, so this policy will not impose additional costs.

“The government’s own Skills Funding Statement sets out that funding is already available for adults in receipt of benefits where skills training will help them into work.”

Out of work benefits for 18 to 21s replaced with a new youth allowance dependent on young people being in training. This would be means tested and apply to those without a level three qualification

Treasury costing says:

• If youth allowance is paid at £57.35 per week, like JobSeeker’s Allowance and uses the same means test as university funding (tapering from £25,000 to £42,000), and if the numbers of unemployed people aged 18 to 21 remain the same, the policy would cost £1.1bn to £1.4bm
• However, the Treasury also estimates the policy would save £20m

Labour says:

“The Tories have examined only a limited range of options for how to deliver this change. We have been clear that there will be no proposals for borrowing in our manifesto, and that we will deliver this policy in a cost-neutral fashion.”